Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Cowards
Cowards
Does Truth exist? YES or NO. I think it's so cowardly to avoid closed ended questions. I'm going to do somthing I didn't think I would do in this debate. I'm going to pray for Zakath. Yeah, that's right, you heard what I said. Here is my prayer: Lord, would you give Zakath the courage to answer Bob's questions directly so that we could get to the heart of the matter on why he rejects You? Amen
Cowards
Does Truth exist? YES or NO. I think it's so cowardly to avoid closed ended questions. I'm going to do somthing I didn't think I would do in this debate. I'm going to pray for Zakath. Yeah, that's right, you heard what I said. Here is my prayer: Lord, would you give Zakath the courage to answer Bob's questions directly so that we could get to the heart of the matter on why he rejects You? Amen
Re: Cowards
Re: Cowards
Good deal, Brother. A few of us have been praying for Zakath for quite a while now.
Re: Cowards
Good deal, Brother. A few of us have been praying for Zakath for quite a while now.
Greetings Zakath,
This is an interesting precursor discussion to the debate. While I can appreciate that one tactic of debate is a sort of "smoke screen" to keep the focus off the issue at hand, wouldn't attributes that are necessary to establish the question at hand be encouraged? In issues such as this it is not a matter of a simple yes or no. What may be perfectly acceptable with minimal information to one may not be as compelling to another. In this way a preponderance of attributes may be needed to support an idea so that it is reasonable to conclude through logic that one concept outweighs another. Another tactic used is the avoidance of uncomfortable questions for one reason or another. This type of discussion tends to drag out a debate by blurring the definitions. I think it would behoove both of you to keep the discussion on track by eliminating as much of the "dodging" as possible. If a question appears unreasonable, it must be clearly and logically dismantled. Otherwise it falls squarely on opinion not observation. In this particular question it must be ascertained why absolute truth is either false or irrelevant to the discussion. In the same way as it is important for Pastor Enyart to establish why it is important. In reference to Bob's church helping his cause, you are absolutely right. GOD does not need us, or our wisdom, to succeed. GOD's Power and Glory are made perfect through weakness.
Palto
This is an interesting precursor discussion to the debate. While I can appreciate that one tactic of debate is a sort of "smoke screen" to keep the focus off the issue at hand, wouldn't attributes that are necessary to establish the question at hand be encouraged? In issues such as this it is not a matter of a simple yes or no. What may be perfectly acceptable with minimal information to one may not be as compelling to another. In this way a preponderance of attributes may be needed to support an idea so that it is reasonable to conclude through logic that one concept outweighs another. Another tactic used is the avoidance of uncomfortable questions for one reason or another. This type of discussion tends to drag out a debate by blurring the definitions. I think it would behoove both of you to keep the discussion on track by eliminating as much of the "dodging" as possible. If a question appears unreasonable, it must be clearly and logically dismantled. Otherwise it falls squarely on opinion not observation. In this particular question it must be ascertained why absolute truth is either false or irrelevant to the discussion. In the same way as it is important for Pastor Enyart to establish why it is important. In reference to Bob's church helping his cause, you are absolutely right. GOD does not need us, or our wisdom, to succeed. GOD's Power and Glory are made perfect through weakness.
You have impressive and perplexing credentials and appear well educated by your posts. I am looking forward to observing this debate.
Palto
PureX
Well-known member
Hmmm, does God exist?
Does an idea exist? What will be the criteria in this debate for "existence"? Will something have to be physical to claim existence? And if not, how will we qualify it? Ideas have a physical component, but we don't normally consider an idea "real".
This should be interesting if the debate can stick to the actual question.
Does an idea exist? What will be the criteria in this debate for "existence"? Will something have to be physical to claim existence? And if not, how will we qualify it? Ideas have a physical component, but we don't normally consider an idea "real".
This should be interesting if the debate can stick to the actual question.
1013
Post Modern Fundamentalist
Proof is subjective.
The only indisputable proof of God's existence is the working of the Holy spirit on the heart. And the only way to resist it is to blaspheme the spirit till the end.
Not that I am against philosophical attempts to prove God's existence but they are far from the most important tools that the evangelist/apologist has to work with (though those more important tools may not receive enough attention).
The only indisputable proof of God's existence is the working of the Holy spirit on the heart. And the only way to resist it is to blaspheme the spirit till the end.
Not that I am against philosophical attempts to prove God's existence but they are far from the most important tools that the evangelist/apologist has to work with (though those more important tools may not receive enough attention).
Last edited:
Well... not only has the coin been tossed but the first post has been made!
- Status